Subject: [Isis-wg] Establishing Router Adjacencies

From: "HURLEY,JOHN (A-Portsmouth,ex1)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:50:40 -0700

Section 4.4 of RFC 1195 it talks about maintaining router adjacencies.
The first line states that these adjacencies are independent of the IP
interface
addresses of the routers.

Does this mean that if an IS sends an IIH to another IS on the same physical
LAN
  a) without an IP Interface Address TLV
     or
  b) with an IP Interface Address TLV that doesn't have a logical subnet in
     common with the other IS
the ISs should establish adjacencies with each other.   

thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: "Ken Larmer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:21:08 -0500

Hi John,

> the ISs should establish adjacencies with each other.

In accordance with RFC-1195 the answer to the above is yes! However, reality
being what it is, I have only seen 1 implementation that actually works in
this maner! Most implementations do require a common subnet prior to forming
an adjacency.

Cheers,
Ken Larmer
CommSense Networks

---

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:48:59 -0500

If both kinds of implementation were mixed, including OSI-only
implementations, wouldn't that mess up the DR election?

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: "Ken Larmer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:12:05 -0500

Hi Jeff,

> implementations, wouldn't that mess up the DR election?

Not sure what you mean by this? The IP address has no impact on the DR
election, though I think I'm missing your point?

Cheers,
Ken

---

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:28:29 -0500

If the IP address causes an adjacency not to form, and adjacencies are
used for DR election, then they would be related (but shouldn't be!)

Jeff